Obviously, there are those who are simply shouting and thumping the table, but there are others who dispute the givens, and have every right to do so, providing they can exercise intellectual equivalence..

Science takes time and analysis is difficult. Plausible interpretation is even more contentious. The biggest problem is that we are, of necessity, extrapolating from general data to particular conclusions, and the inferences are uncertain. Also the data must and should be challenged by individuals who are competent to do so who do not share any demonstrable interest in the findings.

Moreover, the huge corporate interests who are investing and exacerbating the confusion are playing a double game. Big business wants to win whatever the outcomes, trading in ignorance is every bit as profitable as plausible hypotheses.

I would suggest there are two serious issues that ought to be taken into account.

The first is the high probability, indeed, virtual,certainty, that whatever humans do must affect the world in some way, much of it for the worse.

The second is the problem of consensus and localisation.

All of Nature seems to operate on a fine principle of meticulous (indeed, very likely, metaphysical) adjustment; so, no matter what we think, there has to be a consequence for every action, at some level of complexity or other.

The problem is we really don’t know enough. To infer the knowable from the unknown is simply folly. All probabilities must be calculated from givens. Human knowledge is very limited. It is estimated for example that we have but scarce understanding of even 2/3% of microbial life.

Vast sums, reputations and wealthy interests are at stake. When government owned and operated “scientific bodies” declare unanimous agreement, the grim reality is that they are also promoting a political stance and an institutional bias.

The only way to evaluate the quality of any “science” (even “political science”) is to analyse what has been excluded, elided, ignored or obfuscated.

The Golden Rule

“That which is hateful to you do not do to another ... the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.” - Rabbi Hillel

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Disclaimer:

The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Dandelion Salad.

All content has been used with permission from the copyright owners, who reserve all rights, and that for uses outside of fair use (an excerpt), permission must be obtained from the respective copyright owner.

Republishing entire blog posts isn't OK without contacting Dandelion Salad first and asking permission. Please use the "Press This" button at the end of the blog post if you'd like to reblog an excerpt. Thanks.